I find the comments indescribably bad. His attitude, which is, sadly, probably shared by many famous and/or wealthy people (footballers included) is abhorrent.
However that, in my view, pales into insignificance compared to his attitudes on a more macro political level. As much as I despise the lack of honesty that Hillary Clinton seems to demonstrate I am genuinely concerned about the future of the world if Trump gets in.
Most politicians tend to do and say what they think will make them popular and if any of the TV dramas, or the stories I've heard first hand about the behaviour of politicians are true they are all a little like Mrs Clinton just, perhaps, cleverer at hiding their indiscretions, and keeping their secrets better.
I am concerned, but not terribly surprised, that the Americans would line up these two undesirables to be the leader of the remaining Super Power (all be it that I realise that China are in that category now). I just hope that if he wins Trump turns out to be as reliable in sticking to his promises as his checkered past suggests. If he really does carry out all of the things that he's promised it could be a disaster for everyone, not just in the US.
Pretty sure that if Trump ends up winning, he'll be assassinated within 6 months.
Can you imagine what would happen if Trump was elected and was then bumped off. His supporters are largely angry, paranoid and heavily armed, it would set off a bloodbath.
Pretty sure that if Trump ends up winning, he'll be assassinated within 6 months.
Can you imagine what would happen if Trump was elected and was then bumped off. His supporters are largely angry, paranoid and heavily armed, it would set off a bloodbath.
You have describe the exact situation that would have happened in 2008 if Obama was assassinated.
Trump is gross on every level but just as well they didn't have recordings of the Kennedy brothers when John, Robert and Edward were comparing Bedpost scores.
If he's smart enough he can limit the damage by turning this around onto Bill Clinton and the sordid nature of the Clintons "past"
I doubt this will materially impact on his already faltering campaign. Certainly Hillary needs to tread carefully attacking him on this one otherwise she might end up with a bit of egg on her face too.
Facinating stuff.
What he actually did in the debate was to trivialise the incident: "I apologise but this is nothing - there's alot of bad stuff in the world... let me tell you about ISIS"
The moderators asked him again about the issue and he said it was "locker room talk".
To be fair Clinton used it as a cue to line up every issue of racism and sexism seen to date but she wasn't that hard hitting.
Later on Trump pulled off a very clever segueway between not paying tax for 20 years to this being Clinton's fault for not legislating properly. And this because her backers don't pay tax too.
Clinton is much sharper than the "remain" campaign dealing with Farage but the election is way too close to call. Polling in swing states suggest Clinton has the edge but there's a few weeks to go.
Haven't read any of this thread, so apologies if the discussion has moved on a bit from this.
My view on it. Obviously Trump is an absolutely awful human being. And Clinton is barely any better. It makes a joke of the US political system that it is down to a choice between the two of them.
If I was an American I'd have to go least worst option. It's the only thing you can do..
However looking as an outside you have the choice of Trump fucking up home policy or Clinton Fucking up foreign policy. Not sure which is the worst option.
We do know that the one thing the US system is good at is restricting the power of a president as seen with Obama. So I expect 4 years of Trump not getting anything done.
Don't worry. Trump will feck up foreign policy as well. He literally has no policy beyond "I'll fix it the best you've ever seen it fixed." His responses to Clinton's measured answers weren't challenging her points, they were largely "Clinton has bad judgement" seemingly oblivious to the dark irony.
See, the thing is - it isn't. Hillary isn't great. In fact, she's a piss poor excuse for a presidential candidate. But this isn't a straight fight between two equally shitty candidates. It's a fight between a shit one, and one that quite possibly might bring about the end of the fucking world.
I agree. I can understand that people might dislike Clinton and that they may have serious issues with her but she's not even in the same ballpark as Trump when it comes to being suitable for the job. That man is a fucking lunatic and the prospect of him being elected as president of the most powerful nation on Earth genuinely fills me with fear.
Pretty sure that if Trump ends up winning, he'll be assassinated within 6 months.
Can you imagine what would happen if Trump was elected and was then bumped off. His supporters are largely angry, paranoid and heavily armed, it would set off a bloodbath.
You have describe the exact situation that would have happened in 2008 if Obama was assassinated.
Trump has that sort of loudmouth arsehole in a bar quality, which, call me old fashioned, I think is not particularly high on the list of Desirable Qualities The President Of The USA Ought To Have.
I read the article it doesn't suggest that Clinton is a shill at all (she might be but if this is these are the highlights from 2,000 emails, I suspect not). The three stories here are:
(a) Clinton said that experts in the financial industries might be well-placed to help shape new regulations relating to the financial industry.
(b) A lot of the hatred for banks etc would have been avoided if banks had been a bit more transparent and open about how the financial crisis happened
And if you are still in doubt about his judgement then check out his view on the Central Park five that were sent to prison for between 6 and 13 years for rape and assault on a jogger in Central Park who were eventually acquitted because the real rapist admitted to it while currently in prison for previous rape and murder -
Can't even admit to being wrong when DNA evidence proves he is.
I truly believe Clinton is not going on all out attack mode because she has got more shit on Trump than we will ever know. She is letting him shoot his blanks before dropping a nuclear bomb on his orange face.
I read the article it doesn't suggest that Clinton is a shill at all (she might be but if this is these are the highlights from 2,000 emails, I suspect not). The three stories here are:
(a) Clinton said that experts in the financial industries might be well-placed to help shape new regulations relating to the financial industry.
(b) A lot of the hatred for banks etc would have been avoided if banks had been a bit more transparent and open about how the financial crisis happened
(c) It costs a lot of money to run for president.
Have you got anything better than that?
Wall Street and big business have sewn up one (or both) candidates in every presidential election since the civil war. If you don't want to believe that Hillary is the latest in a long line be my guest. I'm sure you felt the same about Bill in 92.
I read the article it doesn't suggest that Clinton is a shill at all (she might be but if this is these are the highlights from 2,000 emails, I suspect not). The three stories here are:
(a) Clinton said that experts in the financial industries might be well-placed to help shape new regulations relating to the financial industry.
(b) A lot of the hatred for banks etc would have been avoided if banks had been a bit more transparent and open about how the financial crisis happened
(c) It costs a lot of money to run for president.
Have you got anything better than that?
Wall Street and big business have sewn up one (or both) candidates in every presidential election since the civil war. If you don't want to believe that Hillary is the latest in a long line be my guest. I'm sure you felt the same about Bill in 92.
If that's all you meant to say, that's fine. Just don't link to an article in support of your theory and then complain when someone bothers to read it.
See, the thing is - it isn't. Hillary isn't great. In fact, she's a piss poor excuse for a presidential candidate. But this isn't a straight fight between two equally shitty candidates. It's a fight between a shit one, and one that quite possibly might bring about the end of the fucking world.
I disagree Leroy, any Nuclear attack, (I am assuming you are referencing Nuclear) has to be confirmed by the US Secretary of Defence. However Trump is a worry.
I read the article it doesn't suggest that Clinton is a shill at all (she might be but if this is these are the highlights from 2,000 emails, I suspect not). The three stories here are:
(a) Clinton said that experts in the financial industries might be well-placed to help shape new regulations relating to the financial industry.
(b) A lot of the hatred for banks etc would have been avoided if banks had been a bit more transparent and open about how the financial crisis happened
(c) It costs a lot of money to run for president.
Have you got anything better than that?
Wall Street and big business have sewn up one (or both) candidates in every presidential election since the civil war. If you don't want to believe that Hillary is the latest in a long line be my guest. I'm sure you felt the same about Bill in 92.
If that's all you meant to say, that's fine. Just don't link to an article in support of your theory and then complain when someone bothers to read it.
Putting the financial industry in charge of regulating itself is a little more contentious than your post suggests. The Clinton's also have an interesting history with both financial scandal and botched financial regulation which hardly inspires confidence.
So I feel like we've created a false dichotomy here, and I have certainly contributed to that.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not, by any stretch, on the same plane. It's not a case of "one is shit and one is less shit." It's the case that one is wholly unqualified to hold any public office at this point, let alone the highest office in the land, and the other has a career in public service, holding public office, and politics in a way that is unique given that she has the record of two people (her and her husband) with which to fall back on and more frequently defend.
With a career in politics comes stances and opinions, and a need for donors. This is true of all politicians in the States, and will remain true until we remove money and private donations from our politics and election cycles. I've listed many times the policies that she's supported that I disagree with to the point of finding unconscionable (defense of DOMA, Don't ask don't tell, and voting for the Iraq war). I find the places she goes to get money--namely large Wall Street banks, to be highly problematic, least of all because this country continues to have a financial sector that is like the Wild West in terms of lack of deep-seeded regulations and consumer protections.
But these are all criticisms that could be leveled against anyone with a history in politics and public service. This is disagreeing on stances and records.
Donald Trump isn't even capable of mustering up enough know-how or nous to be judged on policy or stances. Not in his years as a businessman (though what he did say then wasn't good), and not now, when he's run an almost two year campaign without tangible policy. This is before you get to the fact that he is a sexist, a racist, an Islamaphobe, and according to the claims of his ex-wife under oath, a rapist.
I've had my "I'm not taking this shit from you anymore" moment from Trump. He does not belong on the same stage as Clinton. He does not deserve to be considered "the greater of two evils." He deserves to be seen as the entirely unqualified megalomanic that he is, running for president on what I truly believe is a way to raise money for himself and boost his "brand." He is the mouthpiece of something that threatens to more fully transform my country in ways that caters to what can best be describe as intolerance and xenophobia, and what at its most dangerous is a white, Christian nationalism of scary proportions.
So if we want to talk about issues with Clinton, then by all means, and there will be many times when I lead the way. But let's remember that members of the Conservative media* and even Republicans in congress (!!!! people who cannot and will not Legislate but will happily do this) have been smearing her on and off for almost a decade now, knowing that she was the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. We can talk about Benghazi all we want, but there have been TEN investigations into Benghazi in what a reporter for Newsweek describes as a potentially unprecedented use of Congressional funds to smear the opposing party's candidate for President**. Please read his article outlining what happened in Washington, Libya, and the fallout.
So I'll get off my soap box now, but I will also admit that in the last week or so I have begun considering voting for Clinton knowing full well I will probably spend much of her time in office in loyal opposition to her policies and stances. But I increasingly have a desire to send a message that if there are not AT LEAST two qualified candidates, then I will suspend my personal and conscientious objections until there are.
*This is a very specific sub-section, namely Fox news, and internet publications like Drudge and Breitbart
**It's just come to my attention via an article by Glenn Greenwaldrefuting another article by Eichenwald that Eichenwald has, in the past, been favorable toward Hillary Clinton so while the article is thorough, it should probably be taken with some degree of skepticism.
Brilliant. I wondered how long it would take for someone to come up with a music video with some of the pics of them caught together with their mics. I was thinking more Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers...
Comments
However that, in my view, pales into insignificance compared to his attitudes on a more macro political level. As much as I despise the lack of honesty that Hillary Clinton seems to demonstrate I am genuinely concerned about the future of the world if Trump gets in.
Most politicians tend to do and say what they think will make them popular and if any of the TV dramas, or the stories I've heard first hand about the behaviour of politicians are true they are all a little like Mrs Clinton just, perhaps, cleverer at hiding their indiscretions, and keeping their secrets better.
I am concerned, but not terribly surprised, that the Americans would line up these two undesirables to be the leader of the remaining Super Power (all be it that I realise that China are in that category now). I just hope that if he wins Trump turns out to be as reliable in sticking to his promises as his checkered past suggests. If he really does carry out all of the things that he's promised it could be a disaster for everyone, not just in the US.
Only in America eh?
The moderators asked him again about the issue and he said it was "locker room talk".
To be fair Clinton used it as a cue to line up every issue of racism and sexism seen to date but she wasn't that hard hitting.
Later on Trump pulled off a very clever segueway between not paying tax for 20 years to this being Clinton's fault for not legislating properly. And this because her backers don't pay tax too.
Clinton is much sharper than the "remain" campaign dealing with Farage but the election is way too close to call. Polling in swing states suggest Clinton has the edge but there's a few weeks to go.
I hate the way Trump continually referred to Hilary Clinton as "she".
He admitted this time that he doesn't pay personal income tax, but justified it that the likes of Buffett and Soros don't.
I don't particularly like Hilary Clinton, but she's the only safeish candidate.
Trump could cause all sorts of world problems. He really is a revolting individual.
My view on it. Obviously Trump is an absolutely awful human being. And Clinton is barely any better. It makes a joke of the US political system that it is down to a choice between the two of them.
If I was an American I'd have to go least worst option. It's the only thing you can do..
However looking as an outside you have the choice of Trump fucking up home policy or Clinton Fucking up foreign policy. Not sure which is the worst option.
We do know that the one thing the US system is good at is restricting the power of a president as seen with Obama. So I expect 4 years of Trump not getting anything done.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-arnold-schwarzenegger-i-will-not-vote-1475948474-htmlstory.html
(a) Clinton said that experts in the financial industries might be well-placed to help shape new regulations relating to the financial industry.
(b) A lot of the hatred for banks etc would have been avoided if banks had been a bit more transparent and open about how the financial crisis happened
(c) It costs a lot of money to run for president.
Have you got anything better than that?
edition.cnn.com/2016/10/06/politics/reality-check-donald-trump-central-park-5/
Can't even admit to being wrong when DNA evidence proves he is.
I truly believe Clinton is not going on all out attack mode because she has got more shit on Trump than we will ever know. She is letting him shoot his blanks before dropping a nuclear bomb on his orange face.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not, by any stretch, on the same plane. It's not a case of "one is shit and one is less shit." It's the case that one is wholly unqualified to hold any public office at this point, let alone the highest office in the land, and the other has a career in public service, holding public office, and politics in a way that is unique given that she has the record of two people (her and her husband) with which to fall back on and more frequently defend.
With a career in politics comes stances and opinions, and a need for donors. This is true of all politicians in the States, and will remain true until we remove money and private donations from our politics and election cycles. I've listed many times the policies that she's supported that I disagree with to the point of finding unconscionable (defense of DOMA, Don't ask don't tell, and voting for the Iraq war). I find the places she goes to get money--namely large Wall Street banks, to be highly problematic, least of all because this country continues to have a financial sector that is like the Wild West in terms of lack of deep-seeded regulations and consumer protections.
But these are all criticisms that could be leveled against anyone with a history in politics and public service. This is disagreeing on stances and records.
Donald Trump isn't even capable of mustering up enough know-how or nous to be judged on policy or stances. Not in his years as a businessman (though what he did say then wasn't good), and not now, when he's run an almost two year campaign without tangible policy. This is before you get to the fact that he is a sexist, a racist, an Islamaphobe, and according to the claims of his ex-wife under oath, a rapist.
I've had my "I'm not taking this shit from you anymore" moment from Trump. He does not belong on the same stage as Clinton. He does not deserve to be considered "the greater of two evils." He deserves to be seen as the entirely unqualified megalomanic that he is, running for president on what I truly believe is a way to raise money for himself and boost his "brand." He is the mouthpiece of something that threatens to more fully transform my country in ways that caters to what can best be describe as intolerance and xenophobia, and what at its most dangerous is a white, Christian nationalism of scary proportions.
So if we want to talk about issues with Clinton, then by all means, and there will be many times when I lead the way. But let's remember that members of the Conservative media* and even Republicans in congress (!!!! people who cannot and will not Legislate but will happily do this) have been smearing her on and off for almost a decade now, knowing that she was the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. We can talk about Benghazi all we want, but there have been TEN investigations into Benghazi in what a reporter for Newsweek describes as a potentially unprecedented use of Congressional funds to smear the opposing party's candidate for President**. Please read his article outlining what happened in Washington, Libya, and the fallout.
So I'll get off my soap box now, but I will also admit that in the last week or so I have begun considering voting for Clinton knowing full well I will probably spend much of her time in office in loyal opposition to her policies and stances. But I increasingly have a desire to send a message that if there are not AT LEAST two qualified candidates, then I will suspend my personal and conscientious objections until there are.
*This is a very specific sub-section, namely Fox news, and internet publications like Drudge and Breitbart
**It's just come to my attention via an article by Glenn Greenwald refuting another article by Eichenwald that Eichenwald has, in the past, been favorable toward Hillary Clinton so while the article is thorough, it should probably be taken with some degree of skepticism.
https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/785595392385687552
Some bad lip reading from the first debate
https://youtu.be/WLYHu0AG8GI